There was an interesting segment with Steve Austin on 612ABC this morning where he spoke with the owner of an "Australian made only" online store, and also the head of an Australian-make peak body for manufacturers.
Both of the guests concluded that the carbon tax is harming Australian manufacturers and encouraging producers to offshore their manufacturing. This is just the start. Whyalla may not get wiped out but how many manufacturers offshoring to Indonesia, Thailand or China does it take before we realise it is the tax that caused it?
pointing this out just means they will put a tax on offshore manufacturing, they've realised they can tax stuff outside of Australia to level the playing field.
And now the good guys who stayed here and persisted are punished with no other option but to follow suit. pretty sad that they get stabbed in the back by their Federal Government who is supposed to be working FOR them.
Why does stuff have to be so expensive though? I remember back in the 80's I could buy an ice cream for 15 cents. Why has it suddenly become more expensive to make the same thing?
I look forward to the next thread on Manufacturers where they're getting a bail out and Infi is preaching that we should let them sink.
Do you not even realise the distinction that this is a fucked govt policy acting to SINK our remaining manufacturers who have to date survived?
Inefficient operators don't deserve bailouts i.e. car manufacturers but efficient operators don't deserve to be fucked up the ass by another useless tax.
We are lowering our Co2 Emissions by having stuff made overseas.
Its quite likely those products manufactured overseas will actually produce more Co2 than if they were made here, then there is the Co2 emissions emitted in bringing those products here.
Thats like avoiding domestic violence in your home by beating your wife in the house next door.
Do you not even realise the distinction that this is a fucked govt policy acting to SINK our remaining manufacturers who have to date survived?
Whether you think its fucked policy or not is purely opinion.
Take the carbon out of it. Would you be happy if it we were talking about what you considered a good govt policy (like say, shipping poor refugees off to Antartica or whatever stupid place you want to send them), but private companies that have developed around housing refugees and related services went out of business as collateral damage from what you view as an otherwise beneficial change?
TBH I do not even believe the story, because I do not see why electricity costs would be a major component of the cost in making furniture. Which without being involved in that industry, I would presume are dominated by labor costs.
I do not doubt for a second that the carbon tax will push up wholesale a few percentage points, but I do doubt that any currently successful Australian-made manufacturing company will do anything but grumble and pass at least part of the cost onto consumers.
Thats because you have NFI how a business is run.
Or whats more commonly known as a Greens Commie-nomics.
The Carbon Tax, a GST on Electricity, is an extra expense to businesses that operate on very tight margins.
Big Business can absorb it because they have room to maneuver.
Small Businesses are hit immediately and either pass the cost on making their goods more expensive or absorb the cost and shrink their margin even smaller.
Yum Cha product = Price
Aussie product = Price + Carbon Tax + Carbon Tax on components of product.
Thats the complete opposite of Tariffs on Imports.
big business is more likely to pass on the costs sooner than small faceman
also, while it isn't all rainbows, unicorns, and candy floss it could (note wording there) put us in a good stead, if business sticks it out, and doesn't off shore everything there could be a lot of skills and knowledge built up on how to make production steps greener, and therefore cheaper in an ETS world
personal I think we have a lot of cultural changes that would need to take place before it would really work, plastics will take a beating, however I doubt it would be enough to bring about a change to, say glass bottles, which uses less water and energy to make and wash and transport, than a plastic bottle would to make, and reuse, and really that is where we need to focus
maybe plastic bag bans (like SA) Australia wide would have a better effect short and long term, after all an ETS is about changing habits, and developing better production tech
manufacturing always moves to where it's cheaper. the company i work for moved it's manufacturing from australia to singapore around 1995, moved it from singapore to malaysia around 2000 & doubled up production with a factory in china around 2005.
carbon tax will make goods made in australia more expensive. but they are already more expensive due to labor costs. even if the extra cost in power supply isn't significant the manufacturer will still not miss an opportunity to jack up the price a bit & blame the carbon tax.
i am against the carbon tax because it won't achieve anything. people who genuinely believe the government is capable of developing _anything_ towards more sustainable energy with the revenue is naive. the government will just let the money dissolve inefficiently into it's bureaucratic money pits.
The very fact that people are compensaited MORE than the expected costs should be red flags and alarm bells about the tex fundementally being wrong and poorly implemented.
The very fact that people are compensaited MORE than the expected costs should be red flags and alarm bells about the tex fundementally being wrong and poorly implemented.
Millions of households, particularly pensioners and low income households, will be better off.
The level of compensation will see the vast majority of people be fully compensated for the price increases, and many will actually end up better off. Plus, if you can reduce your dependence on carbon-intensive products you could end up even better off still.
Infi, I have a question for you. In mining what are the greatest costs to the miner? Cause as you know the Lieberals have been raving and ranting the cost to miners of the carbon tax is significant and will impact profitability. This is not including the MRRT, which I am also in favour of.
Let me give you a clue as to why I ask this. I work in calculating the budgets and forecasts of mining over the life of a mine so I am interested in what you consider/calculate the impact will be.
carbon tax will affect the cost of many inputs to miners, electricity being the major cost affected input, but most other inputs will be affected. fuel to operate all of the heavy machinery will be subject to carbon tax, all products which must be transported to site will be subject to higher costs for deliver (dongas, site mess equipments, offices), every product which has electricity or fuel or oil in its maunfacturing process will cost more as well. i expect virtually every aspect of our economy will be affected by the carbon tax.
our economy is virtually completely reliant on coal/electricity and fuel/oil.
That question dodge would have impressed Kerry O'Brien, infi. If SFB wanted to ask the question, I'm guessing the major costs aren't forecast to change much under carbon pricing.
one major cost that wont change much is labour, but we as a country are already so much dearer on labour costs. gillard already made labor dearer due to the Fair Work Act.
do our marginal battlers need another tax?
mrrt is just another manifestation of labor's tall poppy syndrome, like latham's rich schools policy.
Labor sure has done a great job taxing and regulating every aspect of the business process.
carbon tax will affect the cost of many inputs to miners, electricity being the major cost affected input, but most other inputs will be affected. fuel to operate all of the heavy machinery will be subject to carbon tax, all products which must be transported to site will be subject to higher costs for deliver (dongas, site mess equipments, offices), every product which has electricity or fuel or oil in its maunfacturing process will cost more as well. i expect virtually every aspect of our economy will be affected by the carbon tax.
our economy is virtually completely reliant on coal/electricity and fuel/oil.
You do know that quite a few of the Mines have there own power plants. Like in Tanami and where not receive a significant discount from the generators on the power they use. When a powerplant has been constructed by the miner they no longer pay a wholesale or retail cost, only their own operational costs which is significantly cheaper per KW compared to purchasing off the grid. When you consider quite a few mines are out in the middle of nowhere there is no grid to connect to.
The biggest ongoing cost to a mine is Capital Expenditure, Fuel, Tyres, Labour and Parts. The majority of Capex and parts are sourced overseas as this is where they're manufactured, not in Australia so a CT has bugger all impact. The diesal fuel rate is one area that costs will increase due to the phasing out of the fuel subsidy in 2014, not a CT (diesel is excluded from the CT).
The diesel costs increase due to paring back of an overly generous fuel subsidy. Also take on board the large draglines, diggers and shovels are electricity powered not diesel. If you ever have the opportunity to go to a mine you'll see a very thick power cable on a roller out the back of these machines.
Besides maintenance another substantial cost to Mining is breakdowns causing unexpected loss of production. Nothing to do with a CT. In fact availability and utilisation of equipment is a substantial cost impact on production and profitability.
Caterpillar, Hitachi and Komatsu are developing electricity powered Haul Trucks which when compared to diesel, electricity with a CT is far cheaper than diesel. So a win for the miner.
Construction costs are only incurred once e.g. mine, process plant and site services (dongas and whatnot), so that is not an ongoing cost impacted by a CT. Construction costs at the moment is a tax right off for the miner anyway, so a free kick there.
Just to add to that, ongoing maintenance is where huge savings are made in mining.
Consider that the Process Plant at Newmont Gold's mine at Boddington WA, which will become the largest Gold Mine in the world, cost 1.2Billion to build but over the life of the mine will cost 1.4Billion to maintain it. This is primarily parts, labour and capex (replacement of grinders, crushers, mills, pumps, conveyors, roasters, autoclaves, chemicals like arsenic and whatnot), this is far greater than the cost of power and subsequently a CT.
P.S. If people are keen to work in mines Boddington would be a good choice as it is only just over an hour southeast of Perth. Most workers commute by car on their swingshifts to site (8 days on, 6 days off). The only problem is everyone wants to work at Boddington so the competition is heavy.
EDIT: Now I am not saying a CT won't have any impact but compared to other operational/maintenance costs it will have minimal impact on viability compared to these other costs. If anything mining equipment manufacturers are already taking into account operational costs as a substantial design criteria thus savings are starting to roll in from other directions.
and they will have to pay for the Co2 emissions from it.
Again Faceman, cost impact from a CT on their own Powerplant has little impact on viability and profitability to warrant any consideration in shutting down the mine. As I said the greatest cost to mining is not power generation.
Consider this, in the last 10 years Gold has appreciated over 400% yet the cost of mining it hasn't risen anywhere near that and these miners are recording record profits.
Then again it's all a conspiracy by aliens in UFOs, am I right.
EDIT: I'd also like you to appreciate the scale. From my understanding a powerplant to operate a mine is neither the same size nor emits the same volume of carbon as a powerplant to run a city. Due to the scale factor it isn't a huge cost concern.
and they will have to pay for the Co2 emissions from it.
You know most of the mines, when they can, actually use the earths natural heat to create electricity. That's carbon neutral.
No Business is going to employ more ppl thanks to the Carbon Tax. Apart from the Government growing even bigger.
So, let me understand, because australia is growing in population, and therefore demand for products will grow, companies will hold a grudge and say "NO MORE EMPLOYEE'S" because of a carbon tax?
Fucking hell DumbFace, get a grip! At least make accusations realistic.
Edit; You know though dumbface, if demand increases and supply decreases, an artificial price hike ensures. Which will make you right, that carbon taxes DID increase the prices of goods and services! Well, unless what you say is bullshit.
SomeFatBastard: it's interesting to hear from someone who works in mining who doesn't hate the tax. I personally don't know much about how it is being implemented or what the actual costs will be so I'm undecided on whether I think it's a bad thing or not. Certainly I think if it changes people's habits to reduce wasting resources (by for example saving electricity) then I think it could be a good thing - as long as it doesn't have a detrimental effect on the economy and too many people's livelihoods.
I work in coal mining which I guess will be affected much more than gold mining.
Some arguments I've heard as to why the tax is bad:
-An increase in the cost of coal mining along with our already massive labour and other costs will make Australian coal mining less competitive and therefore more capital will end up in developing overseas projects rather than here.
-While the big companies are making obscene profits each mine needs to be looked at individually. Some, especially older, mines are mining marginally profitable coal. If the cost to mine a ton of coal goes up by even a few dollars this could mean a lot of coal is no longer profitable and existing mines could shut down much sooner than they would without the tax.
From my unerstanding of the CT if you're an exporter you are able to offset the CT against the price of your goods to remain competitve on the international market. The CT is primarily for production geared for domestic consumption. In effect either not paying the CT or at a heavily reduced cost.
If it is domestic then price increases are allowed to flow through, hence the compensation for lower to middle income earners.
I could be wrong but that's what I've been informed.
last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 08:39:35 11/Jul/12
From my unerstanding of the CT if you're an exporter you are able to offset the CT against the price of your goods to remain competitve on the international market. The CT is primarily for production geared for domestic consumption. In effect not paying the CT.
That's interesting - kind of a major point considering that the big money in mining comes from export products.
If it is domestic then price increases are allowed to flow through, hence the compensation for lower to middle income earners
Can this happen even when existing supply contracts are in place?
From my unerstanding of the CT if you're an exporter you are able to offset the CT against the price of your goods to remain competitve on the international market.
i cant find any material to substantiate this, are you sure this is correct?
From my unerstanding of the CT if you're an exporter you are able to offset the CT against the price of your goods to remain competitve on the international market.
so it's only domestic australians who have to pay more for australian goods. why isn't the government applying a carbon tax to imported goods as well then to make them local goods competitive. oh hang on that's a tarrif - which is bad right?
and aren't aussies being compensated for the carbon tax? so who is actually paying the carbon tax? rich people only in the end.
so this whole bureaucracy was implemented to tax rich people. why not just increase marginal tax rates for the rich? because that doesn't sound environmentally friendly.
I thought the point was that nothing really changes due to the compensation/price cycle, but now a good reason to reduce carbon is there (the business will make more money, and let them undercut competitors if they manage a way), essentially leaving it up to the market?
lol, that is such a politically loaded interview. Nothing about the necessity of it. Nothing about that he'd qualify for centrelink. Nothing about that industries go obsolete due to new technology and social expectations and that people have to move and reskill - and that no sob story can demand that larger problems aren't dealt with. I'm not saying that his situation is easy, but that's just a political story of omission.
From my unerstanding of the CT if you're an exporter you are able to offset the CT against the price of your goods to remain competitve on the international market.
i've had a pretty good look around now and can't find anything whatsoever to support this so unless my google skills are terrible and SFB or someone else can provide something i think we can safely say this is false.
selected trade exposed industries are being given industry assistance in the form of a proportion of free permits with this being reduced overtime. perhaps his is what has been confused here.
That video also fails to mention what exactly the hardships he is suffering are. Has he lost his job because of the carbon tax? I couldn't imagine many people employed by power stations will lose their jobs because of the carbon tax. Some inefficiently run stations may need to tighten up their operations and get rid of useless staff but that's not really a terrible thing.
Presumably the coal fired power station jobs won't disappear, they'll resurface as jobs in cleaner power stations. It's not like the demand for electricity is going to go away any time soon.
Even if some do disappear because say running a solar or wind plant is a lot more efficient than running a coal fired plant, isn't that a good thing for the economy? Not many people lamenting the fact that there aren't as many buggy whip manufacturers around any more. His whole argument seems to be "carbon tax sucks... woe is me... I could adapt by relocating, retraining or reskilling but I don't want to".
Taggs, as far as I understand the CT increases on export/import oriented business are offset by up to 95% through measures like compensation and assistance packages geared to aid the transformation. This is what has been indicated to us.
As I understand it some of export oriented businesses that generate intensive emmissions will be provided financial assistance to aid in the reduction of emmissions. Making the effective carbon price about $1.30 per tonne.
With mining much of the mobile heavy plant and equipment (I'd say around 95%) is sourced overseas and from what I understand these cost of goods to import are subsidised/offset to ensure the CT imposts on freighting etc doesn't negatively affect international competitiveness.
We've also been told that the Coal Sector is going to be provided about $1.2 billion over the next 6 years to assist in exploring abatement and energy efficiency programmes.
That's just a couple I know of.
Also I was under the impression that about 40% of the carbon tax income will go to business affected by the tax over the next 3 years until the ETS is a fully established market fluctuating mechanism to again, aid in the transformation. This equates to about $8 billion.
The mining sector was heavily engaged in the discussions with the Government in determining the impact of a CT and how best to deal with it. It's not as though they didn't know or had no contribution in shaping some aspects of the CT/ETS and it's assistance packages. It wasn't all of sudden thrust upon them out of the blue.
The loudest voices in the mining sector ranting about the CT are Gina and Andrew whose personal wealth as far as I am concerned are the main factors being considered.
I'm not saying the industry loves the CT but there is a huge disparity between what the Liberals say the impact is and what the industry understands it to be. Most of the miners are just going to get on with business and make the most of what they can. Not unlike the Oil and Gas industry when a Resources Rent Tax was introduced.
Now I could be completely wrong about everything but I'm pretty damn sure the Opposition's fact sheet would be even more wrong.
Not only that, the biggest factor in sustained employment in mining is commodity price, not a CT. Once that drops below the threshold of viability/profitability mines shut faster than a road runner. Nothing to do with a CT and something that is the ebb and flow of the industry and has happened many a time in the past and will so in the future........supply and demand.
last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 14:52:14 12/Jul/12
Taggs, as far as I understand the CT increases on export/import oriented business are offset by up to 95% through measures like compensation and assistance packages geared to aid the transformation. This is what has been indicated to us.
yes, this is more or less correct. a large proportion of this involves the free permits i mentioned above. what you said earlier:
From my unerstanding of the CT if you're an exporter you are able to offset the CT against the price of your goods to remain competitve on the international market.
has a different meaning and would be interpreted very differently.
this may seem like pedantics but the difference between the two is material. not trying to have a go, only clarifying things so there's no misinformation in the thread.
That's cool Taggs. As I said English isn't my strong point. You should see me when I have to write large reports, nothing more excruciating than having to continually review my English.
Too many years writing software in different languages where now English is my least preferred.
I don't know which is the more bitter irony or sarcasm. The fact they're robbing us of our natural resources and polluting the water.
Or the fact they are charging us for our sovereign resources that we own on a state-by-state basis.
It is practically the beautiful horridly distorted long-con. Least some towns try to get make people aware and country towns people tend to be more, vocal / passionate / communtiy based.. But she is being honest right here:
SAMANTHA HAWLEY: At the annual Minerals Council dinner in Parliament's Great Hall the Prime Minister knew she had a tough audience on her hands.
JULIA GILLARD: Australia needs tough leadership and I think you know by now I'm prepared to fight.
SAMANTHA HAWLEY: Julia Gillard came with a message - don't expect the Government to back away from the mining tax.
JULIA GILLARD: And here's the rub, you don't own the minerals, I don't own the minerals. Governments only sell you the right to mine the resource - ==>> a resource we hold intrust for a sovereign people <<==. They own it and they deserve their share.
And there is nowhere in the world where mining has a stronger future and this is Australia and it has a Labor Government. Thank you very much.
(Applause)
SAMANTHA HAWLEY: The Prime Minister has had a tough week and it's another mining issue that's been causing her the most angst.
The decision to allow miner Gina Rinehart to import 1700 overseas workers to her Roy Hill mine caused party room outrage.
And the Prime Minister's handling of the episode has given her opponent Tony Abbott ammunition to question her support for the deal.
Everything she says there is true. She is only 'doing her job' and holding your (ownership) resource in trust. When you figure it out, let me know. Even the original (originee) have trustee councils over the land. I use to have a picture of the "aboriginal councils" and I am not talking aboriginal elders. I am aboriginal land councils.
It is all being held in trust 'law'.
Here is another interesting query. Arnhem Land is going to be doing tourism.
The Government was already getting a share of the mining industry boom through royalties. If it wasnt so incompetent and wasteful it wouldnt need more Taxes to fund its ideological garbage and bribes to keep the Greens onside and Labor in power.
The Mining Tax isnt going to 'sovereign people' its going to the Government so they can piss it up against the wall.
Here's the first thing I've gotten in the mail that I can recall that shows how the Carbon Tax is going to affect me me directly in payment for stuff.. arrived a couple days ago.
HurricanJim, if polluters are being compensated and middle and low income people are being compensated for the carbontax, then who is really paying for this carbon tax? THE HIGH INCOME EARNERS - another tax the rich bright idea.
Secondly, do you for one second think that the government's compensation to low and middle income earners is sufficient once and for all, for the ongoing potential cost of the carbon tax? If no, then low and middle income earners will also be paying at some stage. Everyone's quality of life will be worse off due to this tax, as other countries enjoy goods without a carbon tax.
Taxes cannot CREATE wealth - they simply re-distribute and/or waste it.
Haha WHAT the hell infi. I don't know about you but I thought the carbon tax was an incentive for people and companies and governments to cut their carbon emission to save the earth. So why are you now spouting nonsense about wealth creation? You sound like a crazy USAmerican. You've made some good points, I think anyway, just shutup and say you don't like the other side.
Everyone's quality of life will be worse off due to this tax, as other countries enjoy goods without a carbon tax.
Like an alcopops tax stopped binge drinking? Alcohol related hospital incidents are no lower than before the tax - this was discussed by some hospital guy on 612ABC about a month ago. People are such idiots, they feed off news that govt is "doing something about climate change/binge drinking/[insert bandwagon] by introducing a new tax".
If you think this Carbon Tax will stop "climate change" you are an idiot.
Most people are not academically/detail minded and struggle to understand more than one sentence at a time. That is why political discourse is so "reductive". That's voters for you, and it's why political campaigning is so simplistic. That's why ultimately people depend on governments to solve the problems in their lives. They are too lazy and too consumed with which LED TV or Foxtel package they are going to buy next to deal with issues of substance.
The Gillard Govt couldn't supply a list of the defined 200 polluters to pay the tax 1 month before the tax started. Yesterday Bill Shorten couldn't answer if GST would apply on the tax. It seems the Gillard govt gets a bit bored with detail too. Business operators appreciate detail though - it gives them certainty.
Straw man argument. No it won't stop climate change but it might reduce Australia's carbon output (remember Australia is 11th in the world for carbon emssions/capita).
As for your example, you're making the assumption that everyone drinks alcopops and therefore a tax on alcopops should therefore reduce amount consumed and in turn hospital admissions. You're not an idiot so you can see why this example is a bad analogy. Also, the tax was to stop young peps from binge drinking.
But research (not some fucking hospital guy on a radio station) has shown the benefits of taxing certain goods that cause health problems.
Address the issue of alcopops and don't get distracted greazy. Binge drinkers simply substituted their binge drinking drink to bottled spirits for example. You're not stupid. The economic laws of elasticity are king in this respect. The tax was a giant fucking smoke screen and not aimed at addressing anti-social behaviour or health issues. Why do we let govt saddle us with ineffective taxes???
For a similar reason the Carbon Tax is a smokescreen.
1. People want to consume Carbon intensive goods of their choice. 2. Imported goods are not subjected to Carbon Tax. 3. People buy overseas manufactured Carbon intensive goods . 4. Our economy eats a dick.
Greens now want to put a tax on plastic and glass containers. This must be good for the environment, surely right? Doesn't matter about the cost to consumer.
around 60 are primarily involved in electricity generation; • around 100 are primarily involved in coal or other mining; • around 40 are natural gas suppliers; • around 60 are primarily involved in industrial processes (cement, chemicals and metal processing); • around 50 operate in a range of other fossil fuel intensive sectors; and • around 130 operate in the waste disposal sector
Saying "Taxes cannot CREATE wealth - they simply re-distribute and/or waste it." is so asinine I cannot see how you typed it with a straight face, but anyway.
infi - to cut a long story short, are you basically just a complete free market person, or what?
Straw man argument. No it won't stop climate change but it might reduce Australia's carbon output (remember Australia is 11th in the world for carbon emssions/capita).
Australia emits 1.32% of Human Co2 Emissions.
The Carbon Tax penalises Australian businesses and mostly small businesses vie Electricity Bills.
The uncertainty created by the most incompetent government in our history means that business is parallised on how to deal with the Tax because in a little over 12 months The ALP will cease to be a major Political Party in Australia and the first taxi off the rank for the Coailition is to AXE THE TAX.
How anyone who has even a remote understanding of how business operates could ever support this tax is mind boggling. How can a reasonable small business owner invest in clean energy ?
Hey, infi using just about the whole list of logical fallacies in his arguments. That's unusual (in case you didn't know, I'm being sarcastic).
I like how in this thread he is all indignant about the poor rich people being taxed, while in the other thread he doesn't give a shit about people from war-torn countries being thrown to the proverbial wolves because of [insert infi slippery slope political rhetoric argument here]
asinine trog? i giggle at the word with the air of smugness and superiority that surrounds it. are you trying to suggest that taxes do create wealth? has anyone in the history of economics ever suggested that? taxes are a necessary evil, not a benefit to be doled out ad nauseum.
greazy it is as plain as the nose on your face that consumers pay the tax. business doesn't pay jack, they pass it on.
As I said earlier: "if polluters are being compensated and middle and low income people are being compensated for the carbontax, then who is really paying for this carbon tax? THE HIGH INCOME EARNERS."
asinine trog? i giggle at the word with the air of smugness and superiority that surrounds it. are you trying to suggest that taxes do create wealth? has anyone in the history of economics ever suggested that? taxes are a necessary evil, not a benefit to be doled out ad nauseum.
I'm saying what you said is an obvious false dichotomy
greazy it is as plain as the nose on your face that consumers pay the tax. business doesn't pay jack, they pass it on.
I haven't really looked at the implications for our business - I just got back from holidays and our accountants are still wrapped up doing the end of FY stuff. But assuming that brochure I linked above is right, we're looking at a 10% increase in our electricity bill as a result of the tax. "Passing that on" would be more hassle than it's worth to our small business I suspect.
(Once again I find myself in the position of sounding like I'm defending something I don't want, don't like, and didn't vote for, simply because the arguments being made against it are so ridiculous)
oh, and:
i giggle at the word with the air of smugness and superiority that surrounds it
Just because you're happy to treat everyone like the lowest common denominator by talking down to everyone a la Fox News doesn't mean the rest of us are :)
I admitted the error of the amount fpot. But there actually isn't a LOGICAL fallacy. Both the Carbon Tax and GST are taxes levied on businesses and charged onto consumers. You have no clue about business at all.
I think the first step you need to make if you want to stop making logical fallacies is to actually find out what they are. I think that might help you a bit.
Haha jesus h christ, better take evolution and heliocentrism out too, to replace it with the "not propaganda"(?) of people like faceman and infi. You shows them globally accomplished scientists that they don't know their own field, you read some conspiracy stuff on the Internet after all.
not to get them too bogged down with fanatical alarmist dogma.
Considering the Fed LNP policy is to reduce emissions by 5% within 10 years using their Direct Action Policy the whole Fed LNP must be full of fanatics brainwashed by all the dogma.
The middle east is a tricky one. This new christian right/mining party would just say it out of raw xenophobia, rather than ever identify Abrahamic religion or oil business activity as key reasons. (Recently learned that 97%+ of women in Egypt have had their genitals mutilated for cultural reasons which now are pushed by Islam, which have spread to Indonesia. Yet the christians there do it too, the religions both are based on the same foundation of misogynistic savagery after all).
Nobody is faceman. Fuck off. How many times do you need to be told that the actual scientific community is the source of these concerns before you stop using retarded strawman.
It annoys alarmists (leftists in general) to extremes when people disagree with them. They fell so indignant when someone dares to challenge their requirements for more taxes and "green" programs.
This debate is about the Carbon Tax. I don't really care to debate global warming. My concern is that whether it exists or not, this retarded tax is not the solution.
I think the word you are looking for is exasperation. Exasperation caused by people being wilfully ignorant towards issues of great importance such as climate change and the boat people situation.
Now judging by your comments in the Higgs Boson thread and indeed throughout the entire forum, it seems you are not really big on the whole science and critical thinking thing. When you see someone fail again and again and again to understand things when we have an information tool as abundant and easy to use as the internet, it can get kind of frustrating. It wouldn't be so bad if it was just you (it would actually be hilarious) but the problem is there are so many people like you whose backward thinking and selfish attitude does actual harm to society and individuals.
edit: I hope exasperation isn't too big a word for you. I know asinine caught you up in knots a bit.
It annoys alarmists (leftists in general) to extremes when people disagree with them. They fell so indignant when someone dares to challenge their requirements for more taxes and "green" programs.
Yeah because people really want more taxes, and haven't explained the reasoning a million times over.
Unless we are signing up for taxes and hand outs and massive social and green programs all sponsored by our friendly government (and paid for by the wealthy), we are definitely backward and selfish. Government is sooo much better than individuals, we need it to make up all these programs and taxes for us, what would we do without them (maybe live our lives I guess). We need this tax to be a better people, to be morally responsible to our children. If we don't pay this carbon tax we are just like those bad people tipping their sludge into the river.
That slight 'thuk' noise you all just heard was the sound of my eyes rolling into the back of my head after reading infi's post there.
Comments like this -
infi: unfortunately, savage treatment is all the savages understand. it is part of the middle-eastern culture
make you backwards thinking and selfish. You let that one slip on an internet forum where you have time to think about what you are posting and how it may be interpreted. Imagine what really goes on in that puny little brain of yours? Actually, is the reason you don't care about the welfare of boat people because you think they are just savages who deserve sub-human treatment?
fpot foaming at the mouth again about logical fallacies hiding behind every curtain, Nerf raising THE CONSENSUS CANNOT BE WRONG nonsense, trog being INDIGNANTLY NEUTRAL, FaceMan pointing out inconvenient truths and infi basically talking common sense. Must be a thread about Climate Change [sic].
Fuck I hate these threads, because they bring out the most creepy "misdirection" posters like loutl. fpot, loutl is the one who always comes in to spread his "climate change is a conspiracy" bullshit as a supposed independent observer, along with a stupid strawman distraction of anything that I've actually said. Appeared with door in having a go at me over shit which I never said and is still at it, says it all..
No and hardly. Not that it should matter who I am, whtether I'm DOOR or DAZEDANCONFUSED or HUNTER though right fpot, given you're the slayer of all logical fallacies. And Nerf, it infuriates you that many people choose disregard the so called "CONSENSUS" given how shonky the science is and how overstated the IPCC findings are.
But this thread isn't about AGW. It's about the Carbon Tax and how stupid it is.
Well I was just asking the question. You post kind of rarely but when you do it is always full retard. Couple this with the possibility that you have argued in tandem with Door before (waiting on Nerfy confirmation) and it is all very suspect.
For now I'll just assume you are not Door and that you're just a garden variety internet retard. I'll read your posts a bit more carefully in future though it is always fun finding yet another Door alt.
There's really no point anymore. Getting those guys to talk straight is seemingly impossible, they're too happy to just make up ulterior motives and things that we never said and respond to those.
I'm going to play this shitty forced unleashed game that I got in a steam sale.
Nerf, sorry I simply can't take you seriously at all anymore. Not talking straight and to the point is what you are famous for here. I don't claim that "climate change is a conspiracy", not least because that statement doesn't even make sense, so please don't:
...just make up ulterior motives and things that we never said and respond to those.
fpot, I understand that you've chased the meta-rabbit too far down the hole to make any contribution beyond, "you're door" but whatever floats your boat. If knowing it is meaningful to you, then allow me to confirm that yes I have argued against Nerf and one or two others pretty much on the side of Door on some points. I don't agree with everything Door said.
All that aside, if the Carbon Tax can't materially affect Climate Change (according to the IPCC theories) and if there is no chance that China, India and the US will follow our lead, why then do have the tax at all? It is as infi says, just another wealth distribution mechanism for nothing more noble a goal than the run of the mill vote buying that all sides of party politics engage in.
First of all what is the Direct Action Plan other than taxing us to pay the companies to attempt reducing pollution and if they don't nothing happens. I'd rather anETS with a fixed price for 3 years then after that market driven where the companies pay for it instead of everyone else.
Please tell me which of these two you prefer cause that's what's on offer here or is it all a conspiracy by both the LNP and the ALP?
Tis funny how the LNP's DAP, a policy developed to address the 5% reduction in emissions due to supposedly Climate Change, is never commented upon in these debates. Why is that?
I know, cause it's an embarrassment to the human intelligence. Plus the hypocrisy demonstrated by LNP supporters would all be too much to show.
SFB, manipulating the market with a floor price for 3 years will do what exactly. Look what happened with the Chicago Climate Exchange. It died. Even in Europe the price for CO2/t continues its long term decline and is around the 7 euro mark. What are we (the taxpayer) going to pay here, 25AUD or something crazy? This is crazy.
I'm as cynical of LNP as I am of ALP and it takes no invocation of conspiracy theories to say that either side is driven more by political jostling than by any loftier goal.
Gillard said about as unequivocally as one can get that she would not introduce a Carbon Tax under a government we lead, and here she is, introducing a carbon tax as leader of the government.
SFB, manipulating the market with a floor price for 3 years will do what exactly. Look what happened with the Chicago Climate Exchange. It died. Even in Europe the price for CO2/t continues its long term decline and is around the 7 euro mark. What are we (the taxpayer) going to pay here, 25AUD or something crazy? This is crazy.
In Sweden it's over $100Euro per tonne and they've reduced emissions to 1970's levels and they're economy hasn't collapsed.
Gillard said about as unequivocally as one can get that she would not introduce a Carbon Tax under a government we lead, and here she is, introducing a carbon tax as leader of the government.
Gillard stated she would put a price on Carbon before the election, not a carbon tax. We have an ETS with a fixed price for 3 years and the fixed price was the compromise with the Greens to form Government.
No matter what you think of climate change both parties are committed to action, so again which would you prefer as you're going to get one or the other. So let's not dilly dally around the question.
I don't claim that "climate change is a conspiracy"
loutl, if you're going to lie on the Internet where what you've said previously is still referenceable, you're going to have a bad time.
AGW is dead for now. The (so called) first world can't afford to send tons of cash to the (so called) third world at the moment, which is all that the scare was ever about.
The CO2 emissions -> catastrophic warming hypothesis is shockingly weak and more people are beginning to realise this, much to the chagrin of those that stand to benefit from the scare.
People: Gaia is not a real person. Mother Nature is not a real person. Our planet's climate is always changing. Changing climate will not harm your children.
You are showing some pretty classical signs of being a compulsive liar.
SFB, I'm not sure what your point is. As I said, I'd rather neither of those options. I'm not pro LNP nor pro ALP. There are other candidates to vote for you realise?
Nerfy, like I said, it's hard to take you seriously. You accuse me of being a liar (sorry, "sick" liar, sorry now you've editted it to "compulsive") and you've posted some of my previous comments on this issue... that actually agree with the comment one assumes (because you haven't actually said) is the one is allegedly a lie:
I don't claim that "climate change is a conspiracy"
Nerfy, if I hadn't already formed such a low opinion of your intelligence, I would be forced to conclude you were living up to your moniker.
i am in a hipster cafe discussing how pressing and urgent the issues of climate change are. We have all agreed (over coffees) that taxation is the only solution. Feels good.
Now I don't care, if you're label is Hipster, Conspiracy Theorist, Liberal or Labor. Cause at the end of the day there is one label that we all fall under and that is MAN. I would say, KIND but we aren't there yet. There is also a another label the whole 'system falls under and that is:
I also think that it could just been easier to modify the Goods and Services Tax to include any environmental implication. But then, again thats' "legal" not "lawful". Legal language on pieces of paper can be changed to match any situation that the legislative dictates
Let's just be frank, Infinite growth system cannot survive on a finite resource planet. That is one thing I think we could all agree with.
i am in a hipster cafe discussing how pressing and urgent the issues of climate change are. We have all agreed (over coffees) that taxation is the only solution. Feels good.
Nah bs, I never agreed. I just disagreed with the arguments you put forward.
I would like you to propose a different solution to the problem. How should Australia drop it's per capita carbon emissions?
Direct Action is more easily adaptable and less economically risky.
I dont think its a solution to global warming but its 'doing something' rather than nothing.
Abbotts yoda, Howard, was always going to wait to see what America did.
Sensible Economic Policy.
Im beginning to suspect Global Warming is plan to sell Gas.
you can read my theory on my blog since my conspiracy theories are too 'hot' for QGL.
if you are speaking of universities and government agencies, then they would have to reallocate existing funding from other areas. remember: climate change is the "biggest moral challenge of our time", so it should be easy to reallocate funding.
this is a commercially driven sector of research given the potential profits for clean energy, so it shouldn't be up to government handouts for research. the whole argument for "clean energy" is that it needs to also be more efficient than coal.
greazy if the taxpayer is in the enterprise of developing clean energy solutions (whether they be an individual, partnership, trust or company) they would be able to access tax breaks, similar to what is allocated to miners, farmers etc today. it would simply be a matter of crafting a tax break that suits the government's timeframe and budget for clean energy.
i appreciate that research can be hit and miss and takes time to develop viable products, it would be about allowing large capital depreciation rates and perhaps tax rebates as well.
How should Australia drop it's per capita carbon emissions?
per capita is a meaningless term.
Its a clever way to make Australia seem like a big player in Co2 Emissions.
we emit around 1.3% of the World emissions.
We are a nobody in the Co2 scheme.
and thats 1.3% of Co2 that Humans emit, 96% of Co2 emissions come from Nature.
PM
WWW
